This morning saw the defense give its closing statement in Florida v. Zimmerman, the last opportunity for them to deliver their compelling narrative of innocence to the jury. And boy, did Mark O’Mara deliver. In a closing rich with evidence, facts, and the law, O’Mara focused the jury on their legal obligation to deliver a verdict consistent with the State’s burden to prove Zimmerman’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

O’Mara stepped them through every significant piece of evidence, and every single witness that had appeared in court. He reminded them of their duty to come to a verdict using only the evidence actually presented at trial, and that any “filling in the gaps” must be seen as contributing towards reasonable doubt, and therefore towards a not guilty verdict. He urged them to do the opposite of what the State had suggested in BDLR’s fact-free closing, when the State seemed to suggest that the jury not be overly concerned with the evidence but rather apply their “common sense.”

Mark O’Mara, defense counsel, delivers closing argument

O’Mara’s last few sentences were particularly powerful. He urged the jury, when they went into deliberations, to consider self-defense first. Because unless the State has disproved self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, they must find George Zimmerman not guilty.

It was, in short, a masterful closing of the highest order, appealing to the civilized qualities of the jurors and their legal and moral charge.

In response, Mr. Guy delivered the State’s rebuttal closing in a manner that was even more fact-free than had been BLDR’s–something I hadn’t imagined possible. He started an immediate emotive appeal to the “human heart”, and never looked back. He referred to Martin as a “child” at least a half-dozen times, and Zimmerman as a “grown man”. What he did not do, what he could not do, was argue facts in evidence to exclude any reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence. This was yet another childish and histrionic “performance” by the State in a prosecution that had long since become their Gallipoli.

Mr. Guy, State prosecutor, delivers State rebuttal closing

OK, wanted to get that up quickly. A more detailed analysis to follow within a couple of hours.

This guy looks like he may have gotten in early on the post verdict violence. Sad story, but I just cant help but think it might have been related to the Zimmerman case. AA male walks up to a guy at a bus stop and puts a bullet in the guys head at 5:30PM. Victim was a father of three with no apparent relation to his killer http:// miami.cbslocal.com/2013/07/12/arrest-made-in-bus-stop-shooting-death/

Was O’Mara a little brief with showing reasonable fear? I thought he could’ve done a little more. Andrew sells Guy a little short I think. While he may have been a little too dramatic at times, he’s very persuasive in the moment.

I hope the jurors review the evidence because Root said the gun was accessible, but I wonder why O’Mara never spoke to that, especially since unknown DNA, Martin not excluded, was found on Z’s holster. I don’t remember the gunshot and cessation of screaming being addressed at trial and I wonder what the jury will make of that.

What about addressing the jury about not coming in with a compromise verdict? Didnt seem that O’Mara was very strong on that point other than saying that self-defense is a defense for everything. Anyone else concerned about the jury deciding “we have to convict him of something”?